By Stephen Collins, Journalism

Students probably find that some of their attitudes towards plagiarism and copyright infringement reflect their feelings regarding the Napster case. Some feel that music files on the Internet should be free and the artists should be happy to receive the publicity that comes from downloading their music. The age of the Internet and its burgeoning technology has caused the basic issue of copyrighted material to be held in somewhat of a lurch. A federal judge's recent injunction against Napster, the popular music swapping Internet service, is a start toward protecting copyrighted material, but only a start. The judge in this case said that the service must begin blocking access to specific music files within 72 hours of receiving official notification that the files are covered by recording industry copyright.

The judge instructed Napster to stop "engaging in, or facilitating others in, copying, downloading, uploading, transmitting or distributing copyrighted sound recordings." In the wording of the opinion, the judge placed part of the onus on the recording industry, instructing it to identify exactly what music files it wants blocked.

The New York Times has repeatedly jumped to the defense of strong copyright protection. Quick to respond to a federal Court of Appeals ruling in the Napster case, in February, the Times - under a headline of "A Win for Intellectual Property" - editorialized that the court decision in this case was a major victory "for all creators of original material" and that, while the Internet is a revolutionary medium, it should not become a "duty-free zone where people plunder the intellectual property of others without paying for it."

Almost a year ago, the newspaper editorialized in a column titled "Copyright in the Age of Napster," that "the protection of copyright is vital to the health of a free and creative society" and that society benefits when "the law assures that the creation of new art, writing or other intellectual property is rewarded."

Yet, in September 1999, a federal appeals court rules for a group of writers, saying that the Times, along with other defendants, was guilty of stealing the copyrighted works of freelance writers by using their work without permission in electronic media. The National Writers Union, which brought suit, said
the Times and other defendants took the freelance works done for its print editions and sold them to online databases without compensating the authors The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review and will hear oral arguments this Spring.

With Napster's apparent demise, some other technological venture may come up with a new form to do virtually the same thing. The battle over copyright protection may move to new venues - but the battle will continue.